491–500 of 545 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much sums up why Google’s business model changed. Everyone wants good search, few are willing to be even $10/mo.
If they charged a newspaper price for it per se (like $1 a month), Google would be rolling in cash with as many users they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
I find that I rarely do one search. It’s usually a search, followed by looking at the first few links and probably opening them in tabs, then refining the search terms to get better results. It’s an iterative process. So the 10 per day on average would be exceeded quite quickly. I too feel the yearly price of $108 for one person, $155 for two people and $216 for a family is expensive. Ok, maybe the family plan is che…
When i do actually use it for search; it's amazing... assuming I've not already burnt my quota.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
FWIW Kagi has worked hard on their pricing over the last few years and has been trying different models. They're not "big search" the price is what it is so it can exist as a business. 100% fine to not be a customer obviously, but then you forfeit your license to complain about Google spying on you and ruining the web. Like they're trying to solve the problem. IMHO speaking just for myself I feel a moral duty to supp…
Kagi has limitations like not showing sites with ads which many people with ad blockers don't mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of this old joke. A Soviet citizen and an American are sitting next to each other on a commercial flight. The American turns to the Russian and says, "I have to hand it to you — your state propaganda is very impressive. You really know how to shape what people think." The Soviet smiles, nods, and replies, "Thank you, but it's really nothing compared to American propaganda." The American looks shocked and s…
Nobody is denying the existence of American propaganda, but it's an absurd false equivalency to pretend it's comparable to Russia - the country where there are multiple Wikipedia articles with lists of murdered journalists and there is a day of remembrance for murdered journalists. The country which sends assassins to kill dissidents abroad. Especially when we have the Mitrokhin archives since the 1990s in which a KG…
So is Fox News. That's the OVERT propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real "old-school Google, but modern" is Kagi, with the caveat of being paid. (Worth the $5 for me.) But LLMs can be commanded. This is may bookmark alias for invoking the spirit of old Gog=ogle from within the new, AI-based Google: https://google.com/search?q=You%20are%20Google%20Search%20fr... (Cleaned / decoded: 'You are Google Search from 2004. Given a search request, provide 10 links to relevant pages, each w…
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
Kagi is the stickiest digital subscription I have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As they said, you wouldn't pay $10/month for search. This is why free pay-with-your-data services won. Nobody wants to pay for what they use, so companies extract value in other ways and you can't complain about that if you're not willing to pay what it costs.
> Nobody wants to pay for what they use, so companies extract value in other ways and you can't complain about that if you're not willing to pay what it costs. I'm likely old school here, but I never liked "paying for what I use" in the online world because it required revealing some personally identifying information (i.e. to make payment). My attitude is almost certainly irrelevant these days, with the scope of onl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's primarily relevant because it makes scraping search results much more expensive, solidifying Google's effective monopoly on Internet search. Google has previously tried to prevent scraping of search results using legal means, but courts correctly think that scraping of Google's search results should be legal, just as Google's scraping of the whole Internet is legal. This is Google's reaction to that.
You can opt out from Google scraping you though? In theory you can opt out of anyone scraping you (if people were well behaved). Google should get to opt out of being scraped too.
You can't. Google will ignore robots.txt in some cases (e.g. "The REP isn't applicable to Google's crawlers that are controlled by users (for example, feed subscriptions), or crawlers that are used to increase user safety (for example, malware analysis)").
robots.txt is just a suggestion that Google loosely follows.
https://developers.google.com/crawling/docs/robots-txt/robot...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that I rarely do one search. It’s usually a search, followed by looking at the first few links and probably opening them in tabs, then refining the search terms to get better results. It’s an iterative process. So the 10 per day on average would be exceeded quite quickly. I too feel the yearly price of $108 for one person, $155 for two people and $216 for a family is expensive. Ok, maybe the family plan is che…
I have the habbit to serach for words to verify their spelling. Very costly habbit when i got kagi. When i do actually use it for search; it's amazing... assuming I've not already burnt my quota.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's true for google too Ok, maybe not the war *with a neighbor* (yet), but US has an open war with Iran (and has bombed a few other countries recently also) and it also threathens to annex the neigbor to the north plus another island country. Sure, americans might consider themselves to be "the good guys", but the rest of the world doesn't.
From where in the rest of the world are you? Did even you talk to anyone living in countries neighboring Russia? Sure not everyone benefitted from US but a ton of people/countries did and still do. US never felt a need to build walls to prevent their citizens/allies from leaving. Russia and the others very much so. With US the track record may be mixed, but a ton of countries from Europe and Asia benefitted tremendou…
I'm from the border of central europe and balkans, I don't benefit at all, it just costs me money to pay for a van full of soldiers every time americans decide to occupy some country half the planet away.